ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

MuttleyCAFC

For me we have seen what is right and wrong with the legal system in this country. Judge Pearce was scathing of PM but saw the case as being argued by two sets of crooks and found in favour of Charlton. A club with a massive presence in the community.

Now the judges today may be up with the law but they have allowed crooks to ransom the club, jeopardising its very existence. The law isn't about right or wrong or criminals and victims, lets be honest.

I am reminded of the solicitor dealing with my father in law's estate. £40 a letter. It was amazing what prompted the bastard to feel the need to write to my wife. Write the bleedingly obvious that you don't even need to, that's another £40.

Miserableoldgit

The monies paid out today (fees) to LD, does 35% of them have to be paid by MS, or is my brain frazzled after 14 hours looking at this screen ?

MattF

Miserableoldgit said:

The monies paid out today (fees) to LD, does 35% of them have to be paid by MS, or is my brain frazzled after 14 hours looking at this screen ?

Doubt it as it was Panorama Magic being represented in court

Miserableoldgit

Thanks MF, of course. Getting so confused with so many names and companies. Couldn't work out who PM was for a few minutes earlier (Not boris).

Chris_from_Sidcup

Elliott will rightly never be able to ever set foot foot near the Valley but Nimer is worse.

Useless fat c*** put no money in, didn't give a shit about us at all to the extent he was willing to let the club go for a quid (and if Elliott had been accepted by the EFL he'd have been gone), but then suddenly shows an interest in being 'owner' when Sandgaard turns up.

Cafc43v3r

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

se9addick

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

In what way does RD have the right to “reclaim” CAFC before administration? 

Cafc43v3r

se9addick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

In what way does RD have the right to “reclaim” CAFC before administration? 

There are exerts from the original sales document on here somewhere.  I can't remember who posted it. 

He has all sorts of recall clauses, access to see accounts, right to appoint administrator etc remember he has a £50 million charge on it all. 

Dazzler21

aliwibble said:

ElliotCAFC said:

aliwibble said:

ElliotCAFC said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

They probably thought it was a waste of time given the EFL unwillingness to engage. Again not their fault and I am not a member.

Agreed it’s not their fault - just frustrating that the club is on the brink and our supporters trust have just lapped up the EFL’s bullshit with no push back.

How do you know there was no pushback?

I don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t seem like there was. 

The page reads as they asked about 4 questions, the EFL didn’t want to comment, and they accepted that. 

What exactly were you expecting? "The EFL refused to comment so @Weegie Addick leapt over the desk and headbutted the Supporter Services Manager, and roared at the Chief Executive "You'll be getting double unless we get some answers out of you, pal!" ?" They can argue that the answers they've been given aren't good enough until they're blue in the face, but if the EFL don't want to say anything, they can't force them to. And it's a waste of both the writer's and the reader's time to detail the multiple futile attempts at getting answers when the end result is the same.

(Apologies for the Glaswegian stereotype Weegie 😄)

So you saw the CCTV footage too?

MattF

Cafc43v3r said:

se9addick said:

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

In what way does RD have the right to “reclaim” CAFC before administration? 

There are exerts from the original sales document on here somewhere.  I can't remember who posted it. 

He has all sorts of recall clauses, access to see accounts, right to appoint administrator etc remember he has a £50 million charge on it all. 

Is this potentially where this talk of a loophole has come from that Freshfields (and TS) have attempted to leverage one of these clauses to either force ownership back to RD or to encourage RD to call in the £50 mill?

AFKABartram

You should have a crack at writing crime fiction @Cafc43v3r

No.1 in South London

Roland must realise that for his own benefit, a solution to this unholy mess needs to be found PDQ. A mess predominantly created by his own stupidity.

BalladMan

No.1 in South London said:

Roland must realise that for his own benefit, a solution to this unholy mess needs to be found PDQ. A mess predominantly created by his own stupidity.

He would never realize it was his own stupidity.  Its is always someone else's fault.  But the fact remains that he has mechanism to get out of it. 

CL_Phantom

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

As good (?) As that sounds, there's been so many what if? And How about? scenario's, that have ended in pure fantasy, I just can't get any hope or excitement up.

It'll go to the November case, we'll be somewhere in mid table that manc c*** Elliott will be stuck holding an expensive flop. 

killerandflash

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

If Panorama was to go into administration, it would have a key asset 70% of ESI, couldn't someone just buy Panorama for that?

The winner then being Southall, if as a result either ESI now is 70% by someone decent, or someone (like Lex/PE) wanting to flog it for a decent price?

Swisdom

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

Cafc43v3r

AFKABartram said:

You should have a crack at writing crime fiction @Cafc43v3r

If you knew what I did for a job you wouldn't be far off 🤣🤣🤣

Joking aside what part, that I have stated as fact, isn't true.  As far as we are aware?

Bailey

That means Roland admitting he got it wrong, not much chance of that in my opinion. 

ISawLeaburnScore

Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.

MattF

That wouldn't necessarily mean Roland admitting he got it wrong, since he still holds onto the assets and would have the option to reclaim the football side before someone else put it into administration. He'd be able to see that as another victory for him that he had the means in place to stop it happening 

killerandflash

BalladMan said:

No.1 in South London said:

Roland must realise that for his own benefit, a solution to this unholy mess needs to be found PDQ. A mess predominantly created by his own stupidity.

He would never realize it was his own stupidity.  Its is always someone else's fault.  But the fact remains that he has mechanism to get out of it. 

He won't publicly admit his mistake, but must surely be concerned that his best chance of getting a decent sum of money (TS) is being ruined by the Panorama/Lex shambles, and will want to help TS if he can. £40m or whatever from TS or nothing, that's an easy choice

BalladMan

killerandflash said:

BalladMan said:

No.1 in South London said:

Roland must realise that for his own benefit, a solution to this unholy mess needs to be found PDQ. A mess predominantly created by his own stupidity.

He would never realize it was his own stupidity.  Its is always someone else's fault.  But the fact remains that he has mechanism to get out of it. 

He won't publicly admit his mistake, but must surely be concerned that his best chance of getting a decent sum of money (TS) is being ruined by the Panorama/Lex shambles, and will want to help TS if he can. £40m or whatever from TS or nothing, that's an easy choice

I, and 99.9% of people agree with your logic.  Roland is the 00.1% and is hell bent on revenge against the CAFC boys and girls.  I hope that he likes money more than revenge and comes to his senses. 

Cafc43v3r

killerandflash said:

Cafc43v3r said:

For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.

The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc.  I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer. 

The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.

If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together?  Even if Tommy advanced the money?   There are rumours that up to six million was on the line.  That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind.  A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think? 

Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away.  But what are the implications of loosing? 

Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder.  They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1.  Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side. 

So, as I see it there are 3 options. 

Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it.  I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they. 

CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it.  Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs?  I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing. 

Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds.  If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid.  The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott. 

Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent.  Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically.  Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club. 

Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week. 

Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time. 

Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning. 

An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards.  He does have that right. 

Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it. 

Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad? 

If Panorama was to go into administration, it would have a key asset 70% of ESI, couldn't someone just buy Panorama for that?

The winner then being Southall, if as a result either ESI now is 70% by someone decent, or someone (like Lex/PE) wanting to flog it for a decent price?

No matter who owns panorama they could still cut Southall out through drag along. 

Cafc43v3r

ISawLeaburnScore said:

Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.

They could liquidate, or threaten to, ESI. 

i_b_b_o_r_g

Reckon even Elliotts "admin error" that failed the test was staged

MattF

Cafc43v3r said:

ISawLeaburnScore said:

Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.

They could liquidate, or threaten to, ESI. 

Would that be allowed under the injunction?

stoneroses19

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Reckon even Elliotts "admin error" that failed the test was staged

Yup, Farnell just keeps circling in my head with everything that happens. 

He was the one who knew about the business of English football from many different sides and obviously how to manipulate that from a selfish point of view. 

He’s created such a despicable web of lies and staged moments that the EFL and courts now don’t know whether they’re coming or going. 

AFKABartram

Cafc43v3r said:

AFKABartram said:

You should have a crack at writing crime fiction @Cafc43v3r

If you knew what I did for a job you wouldn't be far off 🤣🤣🤣

Joking aside what part, that I have stated as fact, isn't true.  As far as we are aware?

Don’t know, potentially none. Wasn’t a dig, just read as a script outline 

ISawLeaburnScore

Cafc43v3r said:

ISawLeaburnScore said:

Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.

They could liquidate, or threaten to, ESI. 

They could threaten it. Not sure anyone really knows what ESI does or owes to know what its true financial condition is. I suspect everyone has run everything into CAFC Limited - look at Southall even trying to novate his phony Bassini invoices. ESI is probably fairly vanilla in comparison.

Cafc43v3r

MattF said:

Cafc43v3r said:

ISawLeaburnScore said:

Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.

They could liquidate, or threaten to, ESI. 

Would that be allowed under the injunction?

Can you stop it if you can't pay your debts and/or are trading insolvent?  If PM can't pay the bills I can't see how a judge could rule that they could carry on racking up debts that they can't pay?